BOISE, Idaho — This article originally appeared in the Idaho Press.
After multiple rounds of community input, the Ada County Commissioners moved to reject a proposed solar farm.
Ada County Commissioners cited extensive community opposition and personal reservations in the Tuesday hearing on the fate of the solar farm. Concerns about the environment and how the farm would alter the character of the surrounding agricultural community were the principal factors influencing the rejection decision.
Renewable energy company Savion had purchased agricultural land south of Kuna, between Ada and Canyon counties, with the intention of constructing a solar farm, as previously reported by the Idaho Press. Under the company’s solar farm application, Ada County would have seen 237,000 solar panels constructed on 1,419 acres, Ada County Commissioner Tom Dayley said.
Commissioners emphasized that the move to reject the solar farm application was not a referendum on solar energy in Idaho, but rather an effort to retain the character of the farming and agricultural community in the surrounding area.
“This was a tough issue because I think we do need to encourage business and encourage solar development,” Ryan Davidson, Ada County commissioner, said. “This board is not anti-solar. We’ve approved a solar project for this very same company, but out in the desert where there are not a lot of residents.”
The commissioners expressed multiple environmental concerns about building the solar farm on agricultural land.
The solar farm extends to the north of Melba, colloquially known as the “seed capital” of Idaho. Idaho’s role as a global seed exporter could be affected by the solar farm, given the potential for noxious weed contamination that would degrade the seed value and disrupt neighboring agricultural land, Dayley said.
Indirect impacts to Idaho’s birds of prey, of which there are more than a dozen species in the state, was also highlighted by Dayley.
Commissioners also voiced skepticism as to whether the agricultural land that the farm would be located on could be adequately preserved.
“Even though this project is purporting to have sheep grazing and various things grown in between the rows of the solar panels, I’m not sure that, for me, it truly meets the definition of preserving agricultural land,” Davidson said.
The rejection of the solar farm, which comes after an individual land owner sold off acreage to Savion, naturally raises concerns surrounding the issue of property rights.
“I’m strongly in support of private property rights,” Davidson said. “I suppose the issue comes in when something is requested that requires a variance.”
Variances, or a special land privilege, require certain steps to be taken for evaluation including examining whether the variance would create “undue hardship” or be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the community. Though some of these issues, including the impacts on safety and health, were hypothetical and in some cases “very much overblown,” the overall welfare of the community was not, Davidson said.
The majority of variances that are reviewed by the Ada County Commissioners stem from individuals looking to construct sheds or garages that are larger than city code limits — less common are solar farms that could alter the make-up of an agricultural community, Davidson said.
Regardless of the scope of the project, Davidson said he approached this matter with the same question: “How do your neighbors feel about it?”
“I would say it was near universally opposed by the neighbors,” Davidson said. “We may have had one, maybe two that testified in favor, not including obviously the property owners. That was pretty significant to me, hearing that much opposition to this plan.”
For Davidson, the turnout in opposition of the solar farm was unprecedented.
“It may be a record for the most people testifying on an issue since I’ve been elected,” he said.
In prior public hearings, neighbors spoke to concerns about how the solar farm would change the character of the community. Both Dayley and Davidson shared this perspective.
“Just thinking about this, changing the character of the Kuna community, the agricultural community,” Davidson said. “I’m just not thinking that it is a good fit overall.”
Despite Tuesday’s rejection, the potential for other solar farm projects on desert or other non-agricultural land remains on the table, Davidson said, adding that he hopes the decision does not deter Savion and other solar companies from looking to Idaho for future solar projects.
“I hope (Savion) and other solar companies take into consideration that people move to Idaho for a certain way of life, and people don’t really want to see that change,” Davidson said. “I think as a board, that’s something that, at the end of the day, we have to take the will of the people into consideration.”
A final report on the solar farm, including a formal rejection with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, will be coming on Aug. 15.
The fate of the portion of the solar farm that extends into Canyon County remains uncertain. Canyon County’s review of the solar farm concept will be on hold until the Ada County decision is formally submitted, Sabrina Minshall, director of the Canyon County development services department, said in an emailed statement.
Following this submission, Savion may withdraw its application to Canyon County entirely, but they retain the right to partially amend or resubmit the application for Canyon County “if an updated concept or site plan is desired,” Minshall stated.
This article originally appeared in the Idaho Press, read more on IdahoPress.com.
